Edinborough Housewife on dating

[Naskor]

Honestly her idea seems so foreign to me. I don’t know anyone who would be okay with what she is saying. Over here people are “dating” months before they have a “first” date with each other.

The blog is called Edinburgh Housewife, is she not American or not familiar with American dating standards?

 

[Xantippe]

Honestly her idea seems so foreign to me. I don’t know anyone who would be okay with what she is saying. Over here people are “dating” months before they have a “first” date with each other.

The blog is called Edinburgh Housewife, is she not American or not familiar with American dating standards?

She’s Canadian, married to a Scot. I believe her audience is American, Canadian and Polish (!). I think she spent a lot of time in both Toronto and Boston–so big city Eastern settings. That probably makes a difference.

I suspect that there are lots of dating micro-climates, even within the same country, and that dating tends to be more formal for older adults. The more free-form style is primarily a college thing in the US, I think. (Not sure where to fit graduate school in that scheme, but my husband and I met in graduate school in the US and we definitely had a fairly formal start to dating, at least initially. When I was an undergraduate 20+ years ago there was no dating at all.)

 

[pianistclare]

She’s Canadian, married to a Scot. I believe her audience is American, Canadian and Polish (!). I think she spent a lot of time in both Toronto and Boston–so big city Eastern settings. That probably makes a difference.

I suspect that there are lots of dating micro-climates, even within the same country, and that dating tends to be more formal for older adults. The more free-form style is primarily a college thing in the US, I think. (Not sure where to fit graduate school in that scheme, but my husband and I met in graduate school in the US and we definitely had a fairly formal start to dating, at least initially. When I was an undergraduate 20+ years ago there was no dating at all.)

Indeed. Even middle school children speak about “dating” or “Going out”. They’re doing no such thing. It’s been known to happen that someone thinks they have a boyfriend, tells people they are going out, and all they have ever done is sit at the same table over a cup of coffee. Not having much of a personal relationship at all.

 

[Xantippe]

This just might be my own neuroses affecting my perceptions, but I still see a big difference between a woman considering a man for a date that a woman is not repulsed by, but feels no attraction to either, and a man considering a woman for a date who he feels just enough physical attraction to, to call “pretty”, even if he doesn’t find her “drop-dead gorgeous” as another poster stated.

Since the advice states that women should give such men at least two dates before “you give up on the idea of ever feeling physically attracted to him”, which IMHO makes it very obvious that she is advising women to date men they have no physical attraction to at all. Which is very different from the advice she gives men, to NOT date women they don’t at least find “pretty”.

Especially because it seems most women, especially those with conservative religious beliefs, do this anyway, often way beyond the two dates. I’ve seen many topics on CAF, and other religious forums, where women state that while their BF or even fiance is a good man who she shares the same values, but that she’s just not attracted to him physically.

And many CAF posters advice such a woman to go ahead and marry him anyway, that physical attraction is just one component of marriage, that even if she married someone she was attracted to, there was no guarantee she’d still feel that way after years of marriage, etc.

But it’s much less common for a man to wind up in the same dilemma, because most men don’t need to be told by a random advice columnist to only date women they find pretty. That’s what they’re already doing. About the only time I see a man posting about the same dilemma, is if he’s one of those who feels unattractive himself and is “desperate” to find a wife.

Anyway, I realize that I might be over-reacting because I’m very sensitive to sexual double standards anyway. One aspect of Catholic teaching on sexual morality that I find appealing, is how it actually holds men to the same standards as women. As opposed to many Protestant approaches. (Though I have noticed that some individual Catholics still are influenced by the “double standard” anyway.)

I was thinking about this again, and I think there is a good pragmatic reason for the differing advice, at least in the cases where the man asks (which is to this day the norm).

If the man is the one doing the asking, he has literally thousands of single women the right age to ask out in even just a medium-sized city. So his problem is prioritizing or whittling down the number. So, assuming that he finds at least half the women of his target age group attractive (and in the right demographic group, it might even be higher), choosing to ask only the ones he finds attractive is a reasonable tactic.

Meanwhile, as you and I both know, in real life, single women do not get thousands of date invitations. Personally, in my after-high school years, I only dated (in even the most minimal way) four different men (including my future husband). So, for a woman with that minimal level of dating interest, being very picky about physical attraction at the front end might have devastating consequences. She’d be very well-served taking DCM’s advice.

That said, I think that this applies primarily to real life acquaintances. From what I’ve heard of online dating, for women, it often creates large pools that also need to be prioritized or whittled down.

Would you be more happy with this reading? That you could treat the “double standard” (where it exists) as a pragmatic approach to dealing with different levels of options?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

OK, I have read all the posts here and am still not clear about these alleged double standards. Is it simply the case that men and women are different? That for many/most women looks are not crucial when it comes to attraction, while they are more important to most men.Is this what we are talking about? Yes, nature is unjust sometimes and the guys are from Mars and us gals are from Venus and all that. I completely agree with DCM on this one. I guess it is not fair but such is life.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

It seems like the author has been here because there is a new post up about nature’s double standards. It is good

 

[Xantippe]

It seems like the author has been here because there is a new post up about nature’s double standards. It is good

It is very good! And there’s a shout-out to the poster upthread that didn’t understand what all this talk of dates was about, as where they are, people are dating for months before actually going out. DCM says:

“The shocked tone makes me howl. No, darling, I am not American. Sometimes people aren’t, and I daresay that is very sad for us. But having lived (and dated) in the USA for two years, I am familiar with a variety of American dating standards. Sometimes American dating standards are quite unlike those that rule your homeroom/dorm. Sometimes Americans graduate from college without being engaged. Sometimes Americans don’t go to college at all, or even to high school with the opposite sex. (Eeek!)”

One more thing. What is the deal with Ryan Gosling? Not my cup of tea. Ditto Robert Pattinson. They look like babies to me.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

It seems like the author has been here because there is a new post up about nature’s double standards. It is good

I’m sorry, but I don’t find this article “good” at all. Why did she even bring up rape as a way to make a point about men and women being different? I have no idea what point she meant to make. She starts off with a tale about a woman who didn’t fear being raped in a co-ed dorm, and a man who thought she should be. But then she goes on and on about how “the threat of rape scares many women silly”.

The rather casual way she discusses “sexual bullies” in high school, and ends with a breezy “I hope nobody was actually raped” seems to treat the whole topic with a sense of “boys will be boys” irreverence that I certainly don’t find “good” at all.

I guess she also believes the whole Men Can’t Be Raped myth? Not saying it’s as common as women being raped, but it happens. I recall a CAF poster who discussed his own rape, by both a man AND a woman.

Well since I’m not Catholic, I’m not even in this lady’s target demographic, anyway. And obviously I don’t get her wonderful British sense of humor, I guess over the pond treating rape as a joke is fine, but not with me. Oh well. It’s not her, it’s me.

ETA: Look, it’s one thing to discuss generalities, I’m not denying that in general, men are more sexually aggressive, for lack of a better word, than women. Or that usually, men take the lead in the whole “mating dance”. It’s just that many men and women do NOT fit into those stereotypical sex roles, and apparently, to this blogger, those people just don’t count. I just find that kind of attitude annoying, even if the tips themselves make sense.

But again, I guess it’s not her, it’s me.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I’m sorry, but I don’t find this article “good” at all. Why did she even bring up rape as a way to make a point about men and women being different? I have no idea what point she meant to make.

This point:

Now we get to my apparently controversial belief that men know a woman is pretty when they first clap eyes on her, and women often need time to develop an attraction to men. Beyond the fact that many women are terrified of stranger-rape, where do I start?

She starts off with a tale about a woman who didn’t fear being raped in a co-ed dorm, and a man who thought she should be. But then she goes on and on about how “the threat of rape scares many women silly”.

The young woman she describes is young and sounds rather naive. Unfortunatly, women do learn that some men are not safe and (also her point) we can’t tell just by looking at them.

The rather casual way she discusses “sexual bullies” in high school, and ends with a breezy “I hope nobody was actually raped” seems to treat the whole topic with a sense of “boys will be boys” irreverence that I certainly don’t find “good” at all.

I didn’t find it casual at all, but descriptive and even grave.

I guess she also believes the whole Men Can’t Be Raped myth? Not saying it’s as common as women being raped, but it happens. I recall a CAF poster who discussed his own rape, by both a man AND a woman.

I’m sorry, but I really think you are reading something into her words that is not there. And that first line borders on calumny.

Well since I’m not Catholic, I’m not even in this lady’s target demographic, anyway. And obviously I don’t get her wonderful British sense of humor, I guess over the pond treating rape as a joke is fine, but not with me. Oh well. It’s not her, it’s me.

Aside from Catholic you probably are. She has a number of non-Catholic readers, or at least did, on her blog Seraphic Single.

ETA: Look, it’s one thing to discuss generalities, I’m not denying that in general, men are more sexually aggressive, for lack of a better word, than women. Or that usually, men take the lead in the whole “mating dance”. It’s just that many men and women do NOT fit into those stereotypical sex roles, and apparently, to this blogger, those people just don’t count. I just find that kind of attitude annoying, even if the tips themselves make sense.

But again, I guess it’s not her, it’s me.

The point of the article is not whether men or women are more sexually aggressive but how the male and female minds work when it comes to what each finds attractive.

I feel like you and Seraphic, I mean Dorothy, got off on the wrong foot. I’ve read her blogs for years and found that her insights are spot on, and I appreciate that she’s a traditional Catholic who is not more Catholic than the Pope. Plus she used to hang out at goth clubs years ago when she was single and living in Canada. I find her clever and funny; she has layers and I think it’s worth it to read several of her blog posts to get a better read on her “voice.”

 

[Xantippe]

I’m sorry, but I don’t find this article “good” at all. Why did she even bring up rape as a way to make a point about men and women being different? I have no idea what point she meant to make. She starts off with a tale about a woman who didn’t fear being raped in a co-ed dorm, and a man who thought she should be. But then she goes on and on about how “the threat of rape scares many women silly”.

The rather casual way she discusses “sexual bullies” in high school, and ends with a breezy “I hope nobody was actually raped” seems to treat the whole topic with a sense of “boys will be boys” irreverence that I certainly don’t find “good” at all.

I guess she also believes the whole Men Can’t Be Raped myth? Not saying it’s as common as women being raped, but it happens. I recall a CAF poster who discussed his own rape, by both a man AND a woman.

Well since I’m not Catholic, I’m not even in this lady’s target demographic, anyway. And obviously I don’t get her wonderful British sense of humor, I guess over the pond treating rape as a joke is fine, but not with me. Oh well. It’s not her, it’s me.

ETA: Look, it’s one thing to discuss generalities, I’m not denying that in general, men are more sexually aggressive, for lack of a better word, than women. Or that usually, men take the lead in the whole “mating dance”. It’s just that many men and women do NOT fit into those stereotypical sex roles, and apparently, to this blogger, those people just don’t count. I just find that kind of attitude annoying, even if the tips themselves make sense.

But again, I guess it’s not her, it’s me.

Actually, the pervy bullies were in elementary school. She went to an all-girls high school later on.

 

[Xantippe]

The rather casual way she discusses “sexual bullies” in high school, and ends with a breezy “I hope nobody was actually raped” seems to treat the whole topic with a sense of “boys will be boys” irreverence that I certainly don’t find “good” at all.

I guess she also believes the whole Men Can’t Be Raped myth?

I don’t think she’s endorsing the idea that males can’t be raped. However, she is pointing out (correctly) that the average man goes about dating and normal life in the expectation that he isn’t going to be raped, in a carefree way that the average woman can only dream of.

That is a huge difference between the sexes, and it really cannot be underestimated.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t think she’s endorsing the idea that males can’t be raped. However, she is pointing out (correctly) that the average man goes about dating and normal life in the expectation that he isn’t going to be raped, in a carefree way that the average woman can only dream of.

That is a huge difference between the sexes, and it really cannot be underestimated.

I did want to touch on this. As a woman, I become more vigilant in a parking lot, on an elevator, out in the dark walking from my car to my door, if a stranger is at the door, if a repairman needs to work in the house.

My husband had told me he’s never felt this way in everyday scenarios.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I don’t think she’s endorsing the idea that males can’t be raped. However, she is pointing out (correctly) that the average man goes about dating and normal life in the expectation that he isn’t going to be raped, in a carefree way that the average woman can only dream of.

That is a huge difference between the sexes, and it really cannot be underestimated.

I suppose the most charitable way to interpret all the rape talk, is to point out that women do fear rape in a way men never do, which is true. But I certainly think there’s more than a fear of rape that has shaped the passive way women are supposed to handle “courtship”.

I also really got the sense from her blog that she sees rape NOT as a horrible crime of violence, but as essentially just the extreme application of the general tendency for men to be the pursuers when it comes to dating and courtship. “Yeah, men in general have a tendency to rape, but that’s okay, as long as they control that natural urge, and channel it into respectable courtship”.

The fact that these “sexual bullies” are elementary school boys, again doesn’t make me feel any better. So she finds this behavior to be normal even for boys on the edge of puberty? Again, “boys will be boys”. And I certainly can’t see the “I hope nobody was actually raped” as anything but a sarcastic joke knowing that context, unless she really thinks elementary school boys are capable of rape. Neither option pleases me.

I also didn’t overlook how she minimized the actions of the boy who was caught! Makes me wonder what she thinks of Josh Duggar’s teenage acts of sexual assault.

Again, I admit that the topic of rape and sexual assault is a “trigger” for me, and I’m probably unable to be fair to this blogger right now. Sorry, when she brought up rape, when she didn’t have to, and IMHO addressed it in a cavalier manner, she lost me.

 

[Xantippe]

I also really got the sense from her blog that she sees rape NOT as a horrible crime of violence, but as essentially just the extreme application of the general tendency for men to be the pursuers when it comes to dating and courtship.

The fact that these “sexual bullies” are elementary school boys, again doesn’t make me feel any better. So she finds this behavior to be normal even for boys on the edge of puberty? Again, “boys will be boys”.

Again, I admit that the topic of rape and sexual assault is a “trigger” for me, and I’m probably unable to be fair to this blogger right now. Sorry, when she brought up rape, when she didn’t have to, and IMHO addressed it in a cavalier manner, she lost me.

I think you’re not being fair.

Have a look deeper into the archives, at either Seraphic Singles or Edinburgh Housewife and you’ll hopefully get a better feel for her voice. I haven’t read her book for single ladies (“The Closet’s All Mine/Seraphic Singles: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Single Life”) but it’s on my list (I’m not single, obviously, but I have young ladies at home to think about). DCM is an original thinker with lots of road time (and interesting readers) and even when I don’t agree with her, she has ideas that are worth grappling with. (Boys will be boys is not an idea I associate with her, though.)

 

[Xantippe]

I also didn’t overlook how she minimized the actions of the boy who was caught! Makes me wonder what she thinks of Josh Duggar’s teenage acts of sexual assault.

She said he wasn’t as big a perp as the other boys that weren’t caught. Not sure how that is minimizing…

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think you’re not being fair.

Have a look deeper into the archives, at either Seraphic Singles or Edinburgh Housewife and you’ll hopefully get a better feel for her voice. I haven’t read her book for single ladies (“The Closet’s All Mine/Seraphic Singles: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Single Life”) but it’s on my list (I’m not single, obviously, but I have young ladies at home to think about). DCM is an original thinker with lots of road time (and interesting readers) and even when I don’t agree with her, she has ideas that are worth grappling with. (Boys will be boys is not an idea I associate with her, though.)

Look, I hope you’re not offended, that I don’t “get” this blogger’s “voice” the way you do. I know my own limitations.

There is a certain style of writing that mixes humor and seriousness in a way that can be entertaining, but also can be used as a way for the writer to push the envelope of what is socially acceptable in a risk-free way; if they get negative feedback, merely claim to be joking, to have “tongue firmly in cheek”, and deflect responsibility to the negative reviewer for not having a sense of humor, or “just not getting it”. I find something essentially dishonest about that technique.

Maybe it’s best I resign from this topic, since apparently there’s something wrong with me that keeps me from recognizing this blogger’s brilliance.

ETA: As for what’s minimizing about stating “he wasn’t as big a perp as the other boys that weren’t caught”. How is that anything other than minimizing? I don’t see much difference between that, and how some Josh Duggar defenders have stated that what he did was not that bad because it didn’t involve violence. You know what? Sexual assault ITSELF is a crime of violence.

 

[Xantippe]

Look, I hope you’re not offended, that I don’t “get” this blogger’s “voice” the way you do. I know my own limitations.

There is a certain style of writing that mixes humor and seriousness in a way that can be entertaining, but also can be used as a way for the writer to push the envelope of what is socially acceptable in a risk-free way; if they get negative feedback, merely claim to be joking, to have “tongue firmly in cheek”, and deflect responsibility to the negative reviewer for not having a sense of humor, or “just not getting it”. I find something essentially dishonest about that technique.

Maybe it’s best I resign from this topic.

Here’s a post that might help you get DCM better:

edinburghhousewife.blogspot.com/2015/07/obey.html

It’s about her abusive first husband.

She also has some very smart and practical posts about not mentioning to anybody other than a doctor or a fiance that one is a virgin, as making that sort of announcement brings all the wolves out of the woods. I think that should be said a lot more than it is.

I get her tone because I’m culturally WASP, and I understand the idea of holding your feelings out in front of you with tongs so they can’t hurt you.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Here’s a post that might help you get DCM better:

edinburghhousewife.blogspot.com/2015/07/obey.html

It’s about her abusive first husband.

She also has some very smart and practical posts about not mentioning to anybody other than a doctor or a fiance that one is a virgin, as making that sort of announcement brings all the wolves out of the woods. I think that should be said a lot more than it is.

I get her tone because I’m culturally WASP, and I understand the idea of holding your feelings out in front of you with tongs so they can’t hurt you.

Just so you know I’m not ignoring you – I read it. But I still don’t feel like reading more of this blog, at least not now. Maybe later when I get over my PTSD.

I really don’t understand why you’re so invested in having me find this blogger’s posting style to be appealing. I’m not trying to be uncharitable here. I’ll even admit that I agree with the substance of her post on abusive relationships.

But honestly, I’m starting to feel bullied by your insistence that I not only agree with this blogger, but find her writing style appealing, when I just don’t. I think it’s rife with potential for misunderstanding, and some of that is on the writer, not the reader for “not getting it”.

I’m going to take a break from this topic now. Maybe even this forum.

 

[Xantippe]

Just so you know I’m not ignoring you – I read it. But I still don’t feel like reading more of this blog, at least not now. Maybe later when I get over my PTSD.

I really don’t understand why you’re so invested in having me find this blogger’s posting style to be appealing. I’m not trying to be uncharitable here. I’ll even admit that I agree with the substance of her post on abusive relationships.

But honestly, I’m starting to feel bullied by your insistence that I not only agree with this blogger, but find her writing style appealing, when I just don’t. I think it’s rife with potential for misunderstanding, and some of that is on the writer, not the reader for “not getting it”.

I’m going to take a break from this topic now. Maybe even this forum.

You don’t have to find her or her style appealing. But it would be nice not to accuse her or other people of minimizing or sympathizing with rape and sexual assault.

That’s the part that’s uncharitable.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry if I get a bit prickly every time I see some economic/educational bar set as a prerequisite for a serious relationship. I was talking to my nephew who is starting pharmacy school. He has been dating his girlfriend for 3.5 years and living together for a year. He mentioned they were planning to get married… after he finishes his doctorate and she finishes her Masters in Nursing. The reason they are waiting 4 more year? “Because you have to finish school and have a job before you get married.” Guess those aren’t prereqs for playing house though. :nope:

My wife only has 1 semester of college and based on social security earnings she has earned less income in her life than I paid in taxes last year. We got married and pregnant with the 1st of seven children about a month after she started college. Never once did I consider her as marrying me for my money (especially since I had none at 18 when we started dating or at 21 when we married )

It is funny that people now are more particular about savings and earning potential as a pre-requisite for marriage than they were back when those people who didn’t make enough money were in far more danger of actually starving to death if they ran out of money. Didn’t they also have a far greater horror of having to depend on the charity that was available back then? I don’t know…maybe people now are more allergic to risk?

Of course, back then people were a lot more afraid of getting caught “playing house,” too.